Prosecutor pursuing Aaron Swartz linked to suicide of another hacker | Hacker News Reader

Prosecutor pursuing Aaron Swartz linked to suicide of another hacker

rt.com

296 pointsnighthawk94 comments

The reality is that it is quite rare for a federal defendant to kill themselves. To have 2 of them (that we know about) stemming from prosecutions by one individual, I would have to say, is pretty remarkable. While it could just be a coincidence, the one common denominator in these two statistically rare incidents is Stephen Heymann.

We'll just call him "Suicide Steve".

On a somewhat related note, the callousness of the people that work in the MA US Attorney's office apparently extends to their spouses. The husband of US Attorney Carmen Ortiz posted on his (now deleted) twitter account criticizing Aaron's family for the content of his obituary (screenshot of his tweet here - http://imgur.com/IR5ah ).

Is it quite rare though? It would be good to see some figures on that.

It could also be sampling bias playing a part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias

Two does not necessarily make a trend, to be sure. However, if the odds are 1 in 10,000, a small number of incidents quickly become a significant indicator that the way this guy handles cases dramatically increases the likelihood of suicide.

I don't know if any reports have been done on the subject that would be relevant here (specific to federal defendants, as they generally are looking at more time and are more likely to be experiencing jail for the first time than state defendants). However, anectdotally, I know a fair number of criminal defense attorneys, and they all say that it's actually quite rare. It seems that most defense attorneys have never had a criminal client commit suicide.

You assume way too much. I highly doubt that federal defendants are 10 times less likely to commit suicide than the general population in USA.

For me personally two is still waaay to low for it to be considered anything but a fluke.

The general population suicide rate is about 1 in 10,000, which is what the GP quoted. What's your source for saying it's 1 in 1000?

I apparently read his post as 1/100.000.

Two is a pretty low sample for it to be statistically significant.

Anecdotaly, a friend of mine committed suicide and I later found out he was going to jail for robbery.

As I said in the original comment, it could just be a coincidence. However, if the bodies continue to pile up over the years (or more likely, that there are far more suicides already on the guy's resume that we simply haven't heard about), that will become less and less likely.

Two is not a sample size. The sample size here is the number of defendants prosecuted.

Two events can be very significant if the prior probability of the event is very low.

>To have 2 of them (that we know about) stemming from prosecutions by one individual, I would have to say, is pretty remarkable. While it could just be a coincidence, the one common denominator in these two statistically rare incidents is Stephen Heymann.

Careful. You are subtly reusing evidence in an invalid way.

The reason that Heymann's record is under examination in the first place is that Swartz committed suicide while Heymann was prosecuting him. That's the observation that generates the hypothesis "Heymann is more aggressive than the average prosecutor, and this leads to an increase in suicides". So then we test that hypothesis by looking at Heymann's record and seeing if we find more suicides.

So far so good, but what we can't do is then reuse Swartz's suicide to support that hypothesis. Appropriately enough, this is an example of the prosecutor's fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy). The key is that we have to keep an eye on the context of the original hypothesis. If someone had looked at Heymann's methods and said "Wow, that's going to lead to people killing themselves", and then looked into his record and said "Willikers! Get a load of this body count!", then they'd be right to count both Swartz' and James' suicides.

But that's not how we got here, so the question has to be "Is the number of suicidal defendants prosecuted by Heymann — other than Swartz — significantly out of line with expectations?"

And that number is one. To answer the question would require some data. I've tried gathering data from different angles, but I'm not sure it's out there. Maybe someone else can take a whack at it.

The point of the prosecutor's fallacy isn't that you should ignore evidence, it's that you must include all the evidence in calculations of probability. Swartz' suicide is inductive evidence for the hypothesis "Steve Heymann caused Jonathan James' suicide", you can't just ignore it.

I'm not saying to ignore it. I'm saying not to double-count it.

>Swartz' suicide is inductive evidence for the hypothesis "Steve Heymann caused Jonathan James' suicide",

That's actually a separate hypothesis.

Can you describe the point at which double counting is occurring? My hypothesis is, "Steve Heymann's defendants are more likely than others to commit suicide". I propose to determine with what likelihood a criminal defendant will commit suicide, determine with what likelihood Steve Heymann's defendants have historically committed suicide, and compare the two numbers. How does excluding Aaron Swartz from consideration make my conclusion better reflect reality?

I a court of law, or over a dinner with a mathematican, you are absolutely right.

In real terms -- in getting the prosecutor removed from office, in stopping these kinds of mindless overuse of federal reach, it is best to count both, and use the nickname 'Suicide Steve'.

I think it warrants investigation. If we have sufficient outside evidence to support the hypothesis, then of course go after him. But if the truth is that this is par for the course, and all prosecutors are driving defendants to suicide, then it would be very bad to crucify this one guy. Nothing stops progress like a good scapegoat.

It's also possible hackers tend to be more depressed. That would not surprise me considering the stereotypical hacker's isolated lifestyle. Aaron certainly had a history of depression and doesn't really strike me as stereotypical or average in any way, though.

I can understand how people might expect different behavior in the Swartz case. But what in the behavior discussed in this article is other than exactly what you would expect? Of course she is going to prosecute a credit card thief who has stolen tens of thousands of cards. How does this stack up as added evidence against her?

Please 'know' before taking sides. It's easy to comment, and opine, than to know. Here are some insights from Wikipedia:

US has had the highest incarceration rate in past decade [1]. Why so? Does it mean more percentage of citizens are lately turning into what one would qualify as a criminal, a thief or a murderer? Or otherwise.

Quoting from Wikipedia:

A. "The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population."

B. "imprisons a larger percentage of its black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid"

C. A graph showing a strange spike: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-...

etc. etc. etc.

Also consider these - is it is profitable for a section/group of people (read prosecutors or ip enforcers) to persecute and push people over using tricks like applying one set of laws, if another set of laws couldn't be applied? Is it like we have provision for cheapness in trials, but none for justice or humanity. Is the intention of a trial to set an example, or to be fair? Is it not criminal wastage of money, time and talent this way?

I mean these are intricate details that reveal something is wrong at leadership level. Related to the direction of the country. This is not a working level problem which is where students, staff, entrepreneurs and hackers lie.

Ponder.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat...

[Edits: Grammar, tone and with inputs from Ars below.]

What does this have to do with what jamesaguilar posted?

> No. Surely, something else is broken.

Really? There are no other options you can think of? Perhaps the US is simply stricter? I quote from the article this image is from: "Still, it is the length of sentences that truly distinguishes American prison policy. Indeed, the mere number of sentences imposed here would not place the United States at the top of the incarceration lists."

So yup, the US is stricter, but it does not have more criminals, nor does it imprison more people.

> A graph showing a strange spike

There is no spike, this is the result of using a linear graph when it should have been a logarithmic one. (A very common mistake, and also frequently employed when trying to make a point without support in the data.) In this particular graph even better would be to normalize to the population level, but logarithmic is also OK. Either way, if you fix the graph you will find no spike.

This graph is better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1... It shows an increase, but no spike.

So why the increase? And especially why has it slowed down? Read this and you shall know: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368

Increase ? Why does that look to me like a spike ? And are you denying either of these claims ? Because if not it seems like you are just nitpicking to me, the point of the parent is still fully correct regardless of the graph.

A. "The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population." B. "imprisons a larger percentage of its black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid"

No, the point of the parent is not correct.

The parent is implying that the US manipulates things so that innocent people go to prison. This is not the case. There is also no spike, but rather an increase followed by leveling off.

The US does keep people in prison longer than other nations, there is no dispute there. But it does not imprison more people than other nations. This is a subtle but very important difference.

The US does imprison more people than other nations according to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcerat...

And whether the US keeps people in prison longer than other nations or not, doesn't really help you case IMHO.

Go back and read it again.

This list of not the number of different people who go to prison, it's the percentage at any given moment. So a longer sentence will inflate the numbers on this list.

Still, the US has more people in jail than any other country however you look at it. The fact that this is due to longer prison terms is relevant but doesn't change a thing does it ?

I wouldn't suppose that citizens of the US are more criminal than the avg citizen of the world.

It's just that you have the Prison Industry and legalized corruption (see lobbying)

The distinction is quite relevant to the narrative. If your narrative is that the laws and prosecutors unfairly put people in prison that don't belong there, then you want to compare the percentage of people who ever go to prison, not the percentage if people in prison at any given time. The latter fact is relevant to a narrative that our prison terms are too long, but that's a distinct problem.

Also, we do have higher rates of violent crime than our peers. You can't ignore that.

And while its phat to blame the lobbyists, I don't think that's the entirety if the distinction. Americans are simply more retributive than other people. Look at the death penalty. It's 2012 and half the country would be up in arms if the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. At the end of the day, prison terms are long because being "tough in crime" got a lot of votes in the 1970's and 1980's.

nor does it imprison more people

At any particular point in time, there is a greater percentage of the population in prison in the USA than there is in any other nation in the world. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. It is reasonable to generalize that to "the USA imprisons more people".

Nice non sequiturs with respect to graph scales and lead exposure, though! Our population hasn't been increasing exponentially: why would any population-based statistic be doing so, and why would we want to hide that fact if it were? Also, tetraethyl lead was used at some time in most countries, and indeed is still in common use in those that don't have strict environmental regulations. We still have the highest incarceration rate.

If you're brave enough to see the real explanation for these trends, take a look at this chart: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/exptyp.cfm

Are you implying that there's a direct correlation to people correlated vs IQ level/lead count in blood? Or is this just a case of pirates vs global warming? [0]

Thanks for the link,btw. That was fascinating.

[0] http://blog.lib.umn.edu/farre212/f11psy1001ds1415/Correlatio...

It's not me implying it - the article I linked to did, and pretty conclusively too.

That graph you posted is messed up (yes I get it's a joke), but the spacing between dots randomly changes from 20 to 40 years. That graph actually demonstrates that there is no correlation, otherwise they would not have tried to mislead people.

This is totally irrelevant to what I said.

Yeah actually the relevant line got weeded out as I progressed with editing, research and more editing. While suggesting to 'know', I got to know it myself too.

RT is a Russian national news service. They're quite anti-US, anti-NATO, etc.

I actually quite enjoy the RT TV station - they have some rather amusing reports. However, like all stations, they have their bias. So it's worth noting that their reports against the US should be taken with a pinch of salt (much like how I wouldn't trust any reports from Fox News).

RT is seemingly biased yes, mostly on the Russian issues. I think ALL reports from ANY news source should be taken with a pinch of salt, but if anything, you want to read about your nation from non national and possibly independent news outlets.

But how can you blame them for criticizing US foreign policy ? Informed people usually see the US foreign policy as very bulling, strong armed and imperialist, and rightly so IMHO.

And don't get me wrong, I like many aspects of the US and many people from the US, unfortunately is very hard to be informed and as such the administration is influenced by the few for the benefits of the few.

    > I think ALL reports from ANY news source should be taken with a pinch of salt

I'd already said that: "However, like all stations, they have their bias."

    >  but if anything, you want to read about your nation from non national and possibly independent news outlets.

Which is why I follow RT ;)

    > But how can you blame them for criticizing US foreign policy ?

I wasn't.

I was only advising people about a bias. Which is only fair given the likelihood of myself being one of the few in this thread who actively follows RT - so other readers on here may not be familiar with their editorial style (and let's not forget that the commenter before me did ask why RT may have ran this particular story).

Plus, to be fair, if you followed RT yourself, then I'm sure you'd agree that they are very one sided (almost to the degree of Fox News - albeit delivered less like a cabaret!). Where as many other stations and publications (eg BBC News) are a lot more balanced. I'm not trying to imply that the BBC doesn't have their own biases as well - but they are less polarised by it. So it's often worth noting which reporters are more reputable than others (another example: any health scare published in by the Daily Mail has to be treated with a huge amount of skepticism as they have a long history of adding dramatised editorials, skipping over vital facts and misquoting scientific research).

I follow RT sometimes, aljazeera and in fact any source of information on any topic that interests me. All in all, I think I agree with what you're saying. The best way to try to remove bias is merge the stories and take it from there.

Anyway, I think sometimes there is some truth in the daily mail, fox news, the sun and all that junk media and I wonder if the truth that gets published there is published there such that it can be discredited :P

Craprags don't exist to discredit the truth. They exist to sell their version of the truth. Sometimes that means distorting reality a little, by promoting statistics that appear -to the uninformed- to support their argument. However sometimes their version of the truth can be served verbatim.

However sometimes, the truth is distorted simply because the reporter isn't educated on that subject. It's a common problem with articles on legal proceedings, and with science papers too (the reporting on the "faster than light" neutrino is one great example of the press not understanding their subject!)

More often than not I'm not that upset either way between malice and stupidity.

The issue I have is, mostly and particularly on important topics, with their arguments themselves.

Because with big topics, you can excuse errors with stupidity (or malice as you will) but truly can't excuse the rhetoric and central message they try to convey.

On big topics and high profile news you would suspect the message is not the journalist's independent bias but is instead the management's or dare I say administration's, not just some slipped piece of news that hasn't gone through central editing and review.

    > On big topics and high profile news you would suspect the message is not the journalist's independent bias but is instead the management's or dare I say administration's, not just some slipped piece of news that hasn't gone through central editing and review.

All bare one of my points* was about the managements bias.

* re science reporters

If the defendant kills themselves before trial, that's a failure to prosecute. If the prosecutor caused that suicide, that must count against them, no?

Why would it count against you if you are performing your duties both morally and legally, and something outside of your control and responsibility happens? So, no. This does not count against.

I have difficulty seeing driving a (apparently innocent) defendant to suicide as morally defensible. Besides, their goal should be conviction, not death. They failed to secure a conviction. They failed.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-...

This just feels like mob mentality to me. Someone messed up, albeit badly. I would guess the guy feels bad enough as it is without needing to get 25k people to kick him when he's down.

EDIT: I guess what I'd really hope to have seen (not being a US citizen) is some petitions to get the laws/system changed rather than looking for someone to blame.

I see it differently. This person behaved extremely aggressively and clearly unethically. You want them to get off free? If nothing is done, this person will show remorse for a short time, and then be right back in the game. In my industry, some choose to behave unethically - even if it's within the bounds of the rules. I like to see these people smacked down because they -choose- to behave an a nasty manner.

And here's why I disagree:

- The US is a democracy. Our government, elected, appointed, or career civil servants, is accountable to the people.

- The position of prosecutor has great power, and we all know that that requires great responsibility. Prosecutors can destroy reputations, livelihoods, lives, families, and more. Choosing on whom to bring the full strength of the US government to bear, and how much of that strength to loose at a particular target, is part of the critical judgment required for the position. Proper prosecutorial discretion has been shown sorely lacking in this (and other) protest-oriented hacking incidents.

I'll be happy to let Otiz, Haymann, and Garland speak for themselves to let us know just how badly they feel. To date, I've seen no word from any of them.

Speaking to your edit: there is a petition to change elements of the CFAA that the EFF has identified as particularly problematic:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-computer-fr...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/aaron-swartz-fix-draco...

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5064448

"Feeling badly" is not enough. If they make statements to the effect that they've understood and learned from the experience that prosecuting these types of cases in this manner is bad, then maybe. As it is, we have no reason to believe they won't do the same again, and again, if left unchecked.

I would guess the guy feels bad enough as it is without needing to get 25k people to kick him when he's down.

If a federal prosecutor had ever in history allowed that consideration ("he feels bad enough as it is") to temper his zealous persecution of innocent people, then we might consider similar leniency for him. Since it has never happened, we don't need to worry about it.

Peacefully petitioning one's government to remove an appointed official is kinda odd behavior for a mob, isn't it?

I would guess the guy feels bad enough

Nothing that I have seen suggests that he feels badly at all.

Swartz’s attorney Elliot Peters accused Heymann of aggressively pursuing Swartz because the case “"was going to receive press and he was going to be a tough guy and read his name in the newspaper."

There are attorneys, some of them prosecutors, that get a kick out of pulling wings off of flies.

There needs to be a precedent set that this is unacceptable.

Unfortunately I have a feeling that the Obama administration will respond with something to the effect of "no comment."

Just to echo the other responses, the US functions as a representative government, with those representatives (and in this case their appointees) accountable to the people. When one of those in office abuses that power for personal gain, we are absolutely supposed to take action to have that power stripped from them.

Granted it doesn't happen that way often, but this is an opportunity to do so. The laws should be changed as well, but that doesn't absolve an individual who acted irresponsibly for his own gain

> In 2008 Jonathan James killed himself after being implicated in the largest personal identity hack in history.

Wrong kind of hacker.

Alleged hacker.

maybe, but there's a lot more to it than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/hacker/

Or, from another perspective: The same kind of hacker.

alleged credit card fraud is different from Aaron's case I would say.

In your point of view, a reasonable point of view, yes of course. To an apparently unreasonable prosecutor though?

You'd be amazed by what people will construe as a fraud worthy of prosecuting. Even the most socially accepted dishonesties all of a sudden become a serious federal crime when another crime is involved. A prosecutor will tack on multiple charges just in case they can't pin them for the primacy crime they believe the accused is guilty of. It's never about finding out the truth, but about finding the accused guilty of a crime the prosecutor believes the accused actually committed prior to reviewing the evidence and confirming that fight.

Or basically, "I personally believe the accused committed crime X, so I'm going to nail him regardless of the evidence. And just in case the evidence doesn't support what I believe or is inconclusive, I'm going to go ahead and charge him with several other crimes of little to no social consequence by themselves, since if I fail to convict of crime X, I know I can nail him for some of these minor crimes."

When prosecutors tack on every crime they can imagine, they are simply admitting that they simply want to put the person away at any cost.

That being said, without more details of what this alleged credit card fraud entails, I'm naturally skeptical of the charges. Wasn't JJ the guy who got caught, cooperated with the FBI and then was "thrown under the bus" so to speak by his handlers at the FBI?

Yeah it gives them leverage to force a plea bargain. ie the same as when they extended the charges for Aaron to 13.

It's a tough one though because it works both ways. Remember when they put the mobsters away using Tax laws because they couldn't make any murders or extortion stick.

Unfortunately ethics isn't binary.

He claimed he was innocent in his suicide note. Maybe a suicide note is a great place to lie in attempt to clear your name. But I think he's probably being honest to an extent.

Note that he was charged and found guilty of hacking NASA (essentially), but his suicide related to the identity theft.

From Wikipedia on the identity theft investigation: "Though he denied having done anything, James—who was friends with some of the hackers involved—was investigated by the Secret Service, who raided James', his brother's, and his girlfriend's houses [...] they apparently discovered no connection to the intrusion".

The article goes on that he was mentioned as a conspirator in another defendant's case for the identity theft, but James hadn't (yet?) been indicted.

Yeah, I don't disagree that he probably was innocent. My point is simply that this isn't the Hacker News hacker, but the talking head hacker.

"Swartz’s attorney Elliot Peters accused Heymann of aggressively pursuing Swartz because the case “"was going to receive press and he was going to be a tough guy and read his name in the newspaper.""

This is very similar to how many SV startup founders and CEO's roll. Press-coverage and case-studies are more important than actually doing something worth doing.

Seems like we need a prosecutor with the zeal of Stephen Heymann to go after Stephen Heymann. This guy's history has a smell. Two suicides? Maybe there's something more going on? Maybe not, but it's worth a look.

Already discussed three days ago http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5049881

One factoid in the article about Aaron Swartz's case confuses me:

"Though JSTOR decided not to press charges – and even urged the US government to drop the case – MIT went ahead with a civil suit."

First I've heard of a civil suit by MIT against Swartz. Has anyone seen anything corroborating this?

I bet 99% of "hackers" (I'm using the criminal sense of the word, that I hate to use, btw) have psychological issues of one way or another and they are a suicide risk! The SS, prosecutors and whoever handles these people should fucking take that into account and put it in balance with the fact that they are a valuable resource to society! You may put a "criminal hacker" in jail for credit card fraud, but chances are, if he doesn't stay in there too long to get his brain "fried", he will grow up to become the security guy that keeps shit safe so you can keep online shopping 'till you drop!

I mean... these guys are a subset of what one calls "infosec field people" that are a subset of "IT people" that are a subset of "tech people"... the smaller the subset the less the chance that a member of it will be (1) "well socialized", (2) "psychologically robust" or even (3) "sane"... add up that they're in their 20s and... what would you freakin expect?!

Don't think too many people are going to go for the idea of a certain type of criminal requiring certain special treatment...why couldn't rapists and murderers claim the same kind of social deficiencies?

Dr. Steve, Assisted suicide expert.

Only one person is responsible for a suicide--the person who committed suicide. This realization is a very important part of the healing process for those left behind. Otherwise it's possible to torture oneself thinking "if only I'd done more."

Logically, if it's partially Steve Heymann's fault, it could also partially be the fault of those close to Aaron who did not sufficiently help him. Or at least, there is a danger that those close to Aaron could feel this way--it's very common in suicides. But ultimately, Aaron chose to kill himself, and it was solely his decision to do so.

This seems like a dangerous way to understand any harmful act. It may be inconvenient that other views trouble the healing process, but wishing doesn't make it so. Suppose one were to say, "Only one person is responsible for a DUI fatality--the driver. Otherwise it's possible for the bartender to torture himself thinking 'if only I'd cut him off two hours ago.'"

The driver is the only person responsible for a DUI, unless they were somehow forced into driving against their will.

Are you seriously proposing that we hold bartenders responsible for the actions of drunk people?

I'm not proposing it--the law already recognizes that bars bear some of the responsibility for over-serving their customers. It's rarely-enforced, however, and appears that the drunken driver must harm someone with a bit of pull in the legal system for charges to surface.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/bartender-sentenced-to-jail...

Two weeks after the Secret Service raided his house in conjunction with the investigation led by Heymann into the theft of tens of thousands of credit card numbers, James was found dead.

Innocent people do not kill themselves when confronted with the possibility of a trial. They kill themselves after they have lost at trial. This other hacker (Jonathan James) didn't even wait until they pressed charges.

It's not a matter of the prosecutor being overzealous. It's a matter of hackers being far more susceptible to suicidal tendencies than others in the face of extreme social conflict.

I have a dead relative that would probably disagree with you.

Don't assume so much.

Innocent people do not kill themselves when confronted with the possibility of a trial. They kill themselves after they have lost at trial.

Citation needed.

It makes perfect sense to me that a depressed person who has realized what trial is going to cost, and who does not believe that anyone is going to believe them, would commit suicide. An innocent person who BELIEVES that they WILL be believed probably reacts very differently. But there are a lot of people in this world who, while innocent, won't necessarily have that belief.

I would not be surprised if there was a high concentration of such among people who choose to use computers heavily.

Are you a clinical psychologist?

Do you have citations for your perfect sense?

Can you quantify your lack of surprise?

Is rprasad a clinical psychologist?.

If he is pulling things out of his ass without citations, it seems reasonable that he receive responses that do the same.

More to the point, rprasad is making sweeping statements of fact, along the lines of, "Anyone who commits suicide before trial must be guilty." I'm making what are clearly statements of personal opinion, along the lines of, "Here is a scenario where I can imagine the stress of a legal case tipping a depressed person over the cliff into suicide."

Strong claims require strong evidence. I'm making far, far weaker claims. The burden of proof should squarely be on rprasad.

> and who does not believe that anyone is going to believe them

I agree with you.

In "Goodbye to Shy", Leil Lowndes cites research that shows that even someone who is just shy will tend to interpret other peoples opinions of them and of interactions with them far more negatively than less shy people.

It takes very, very little to turn what would be an incredibly stressful situation to most people - innocent or not - and turn it into something substantially worse depending just on relatively benign personality traits.

Much less mental illnesses like depression that can be extremely severe.

> Innocent people do not kill themselves when confronted with the possibility of a trial.

Yap. Because they will clearly receive a speedy and fair trial. Without bullying and predatory plea bargaining involved. In the end when they are sure to be acquitted, if the accuser is the government, they will get all court and lawyer costs paid, and then some extra for time, inconvenience and the pain involved.

This particular person was earlier caught hacking into computers at the DOD and NASA (as a minor). He was indicted around June or July and entered a plea in September for which he received six months of house arrest and probation until 18 (about a year). It's not a reasonable presumption that this was someone who was innocent who knew he was going to get railroaded "by the system." He was clearly someone who knew he had really fucked up this time and couldn't use his age as an excuse.

I am not familiar that much with that specific case. I was referring more to the grandparent's general assertion that "innocent people don't kill themselves" and my point was that they only don't kill themselves if they are sure to face fair and unbiased judicial system.

>"He was clearly someone who knew he had really fucked up this time and couldn't use his age as an excuse."

That's a bold statement - I don't know his full history or all the facts of his case, but what you're implying is that someone's past actions and convictions are all that's needed to asses their present guilt.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe he was innocent and maybe he knew everyone would think like you? It doesn't take much to realize that this way of thinking quickly leads to a conviction regardless of the facts.

At trial evidence of his past conviction would have been suppressed for precisely the reason you state. However, the rules of evidence for internet posting are not quite so strict.

I would agree that it is somewhat unlikely that he was innocent, but it is far from impossible that he actually was.

There are people who will try to root your computer, and who prefer to do their bad stuff from someone else's computer so that the heat won't come back to them. If you hang around with the wrong crowd and don't know what you're doing well enough, the odds of this happening go up. Suppose that this happened to him the first time around, and the forensics were done poorly, so he took the fall for someone else's crime. Then it starts happening again, and he knows he won't be believed because he wasn't before.

I would rate this scenario as unlikely, but not impossible. However plausible enough that I don't accept the clearly in, "He was clearly someone..."

Hackers routinely use the 'joe job' trick to implicate others for their crimes. If you're ever on the receiving end of such a scheme you might change your opinion on 'reasonable presumptions'.

What about being confronted with the possibility of spending $1.5 million or more on a legal defense?

Thats the most stupidest argument I have ever read. Please consult a psychologist.

Innocent people do not kill themselves when confronted with the possibility of a trial.

Well, we have two counterexamples to this.

You do speak with a lot of authority on this topic.

I am wondering if you have ever been wrongly accused of anything serious?

> Innocent people do not kill themselves when confronted with the possibility of a trial.

You are completely wrong. All of them have the charges dropped, so they aren't ever convicted. And as we know it everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

I don't understand why people like JJ kill just themself. Me, I would go postal (kill someone from that 'justice' system?) in a situation like this. And only then myself. At least I hope I would have the guts to.

Don't think twice if devil has horns or tail; here is the photo: http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2013/01/Stephen-Heymann....

That's Rafael Reif, current president of MIT not Heymann.

Supporting evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Rafael_Reif

Pic is of Rafael Reif, not Heymann.

Wow, I think there probably should be consequences for Heymann (and possibly Ortiz), but in one sentence you've probably given the best demonstration of why vigilante justice is so troubling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com